Bass Management Plan

[wurzel]

quote

We do have now excelant fishing hear to offer thornback ray in large numbers, smoothounds in large numbers, a reasnable large tope fishery and the prospect of some realy excelnt bassing if the BMP is implemented in FULL.

 

And I thought somebody said that the inshore grounds were hammered to death.

 

Quote

 

Hi Wurzel, thanks for replying. I was really hoping for some responses like yours and Stoatys' I am not too sure that I buy into the "nature will balance things out" argument either. It seems a little woolly to me especially when you factor in the undeniable fact that the major influence on nature is man. It is unavoidable, we (man) has to fix the problems of our own creation.

 

Could you elaborate on the problems you think it would cause?

 

Quote

the undeniable fact that the major influence on nature is man".

I am not so sure this is true.

The only reason for the increace in bass is that the conditions favour them, dureing the 60's it favoured cod. man had absolutley nothing to do with it.

 

The bmp is political, has nothing what so ever to do with bass concervation.

If implamented in full , and I doubt it will be, there will be a lot more discards due to the fact that to use a mesh not to catch bass less than 45cm means you will not catch much eles especially in the dover sole fishery.

The French will continue to land fish off 36cm while we have to throw them to the crabs. The French off shore fishery will be greatly enharnesed by the increase of larger fish dispite what Leon says.

there is no mention of how the inshore fishermen are going to survive two summers and replace all thier nets on a greatly redused income, all I hear from anglers is " tough luck you ain't worth a sight any way, you don't contubute enough to the economy, you had your licence given to you any way (whats that got to do with any thing I don't know) now it's our turn to run the show.

and you expect the commercials to just roll over and accept it.

 

I think the government will settle on 40 pahaps 42cm which will be a bit easier to work with, I reckon if the anglers were to lobby the EU to include the bmp to all fishermen then you would get a lot more support from the UK's fishermen, but while all your venom is only aimed at us you will get stiff oppisition.

[Leon Roskilly]

I think the government will settle on 40 pahaps 42cm which will be a bit easier to work with, I reckon if the anglers were to lobby the EU to include the bmp to all fishermen then you would get a lot more support from the UK's fishermen, but while all your venom is only aimed at us you will get stiff oppisition.

 

 

The Net benefits report recommended that 'the evidence be reviewed for managing some species wholly for recreational purposes, starting with bass'

 

That has led directly to the creation of the Bass Anglers Society's Bass Management Plan, the recommendations of which were featured in the Labour Party's Angling Charter and which has the support of the Fisheries Minister.

 

Wurzel is partly right when he says that the BMP is not about conservation.

 

It is primarily about taking a public resource and managing it for the best socio and economic return for 'UK PLC'.

 

With Recreational Bass Angling currently worth some £100 million to the UK economy (as opposed to roughly £10 million from the commercial fishery), the evidence from overseas suggests that can be increased considerably, if the stock is managed to produce a much better angling 'product' (ie plenty of larger fish).

 

(The evidence is that not only will anglers make more trips, spending more money, but their friends and colleagues will be tempted to go along with them having heard of the fun of landing big fish, fairly reliably. And not only will more people go more often, but with decent fishing on offer they will invest more in quality tackle, boats, fishing breaks and holidays etc)

 

If you study the BMP you will find that the target MLS is 55cm, not 45cm. Again proposed with the development of the Recreational Angling Sector in mind.

 

But it was BASS that told DEFRA that it was not necessary to manage bass wholly as a recreational species, but that it would be possible, with the right mix of measures, to produce a better product that would not only delight anglers, but (especially in the longer term) produce a better product for the commercials who already have an establish track record fishing for bass.

 

So, it is anglers who have been putting in the work to ensure that the commercial fishery benefits as well as the recreational fishery.

 

That the 'pain' of the commercial sector in producing bigger fish for anglers is lessened by moving to a 55cm mls in careful stages, ensuring that the benefits expected really are there before moving to the next step (that was subject to a great deal of heart searching, with many of the opinion that we should go straight for 55cm to ensure that the overall objective was quickly attained).

 

And that the proposals, as well as producing a better product, do have an overall conservation advantage, ensuring a stock with a better structured age structure that is more robust, and less likely to fall victim to changed environmental circumstances.

 

As far as the benefits of larger fish falling to the French, our talks with CEFAS show that not to be true, very few of the larger inshore bass are now falling to the international fishery outside of 12 miles, and it shouldn't be forgotten that there were the same arguments used when it was proposed that we moved to 36cm.

 

Having increased our mls, the rest of Europe then saw the benefits and followed suite.

 

And our colleagues in France are watching, and will eventually be pushing for the same kind of measures that we will be implementing in the UK.

 

Tight Lines - leon

Edited November 3, 2005 by Leon Roskilly

[spanner]

I agree with the BMP and support it ...... but I think there is one flaw in its economic arguement.

 

Currently big bass are worth 4x more than small bass, lb for lb, and that is used to show how much value will be added by the BMP,i.e. 400% return after a couple of years. The problem is that in a couple of years big bass will no longer be worth 4x more as supply and demand will mean the price will be less as they become more plentiful.

 

Big bass will still be worth more than small bass, and esp farmed bass, so the BMP is still a good thing in my opinion, regardless of any benefit to anglers, but it might not bring as much financial benefit to the commercial sector as stated.

 

 

 

Wurzel,

Maybe I don't understand gill-netting well enough, but if your concern is that by going to a mesh size to target 45cm bass you will not be able to catch sole, doesn't that just mean that you need to target sole and bass seperately and maybe differently?

 

If you can't set a net specifically for sole, i.e. a low net right on the bottom rather than a bigger 'wall', as it would still catch too many undersize bass, then that just means you either need to target sole in a time or place where there are no small bass out and about (at night maybe) or use a different method altogether that allows for live release of the fish rather than dead discards. Maybe long lining. Or maybe even a gill-net that doesn't kill the fish.

 

I have to say though I thought gill-nets didn't kill the fish, only if the net was left unattended for long periods, but obviuosly they do if discards is your concern.

Edited November 3, 2005 by spanner

[Leon Roskilly]

Maybe I don't understand gill-netting well enough, but if your concern is that by going to a mesh size to target 45cm bass you will not be able to catch sole, doesn't that just mean that you need to target sole and bass seperately and maybe differently?

 

I suspect that the proposal, when published, will only require increased mesh sizes in those fisheries where bass are targeted, or are a significant bycatch.

 

It shouldn't impact on fisheries genuinely targeting sole.

 

Tight Lines - - leon

[Bob Jerunkel]

I was under the impression that gill nets were selective in what they caught.

Maybe not though.

Leon says that the BMP is coming to directly benefit anglers and to make the most of the bass that swim in our seas.

As an angler I cant see whats wrong with that.

If the commercial fishermen have to wait a year or so before they see the benefits thats just one of those things.

At last it looks as though they aren't the only ones seen as having an interest in our fish.

Lets face it they've had it all to themselves for so long its about time someone else got a look in.

Bass haven't been targetted commercially for very long and yet commercial fishermen did alright before they started gill netting for bass.

[wurzel]

QUOTE

It shouldn't impact on fisheries genuinely targeting sole

 

You try explaining that to a sole trawler useing 80mm nets.

 

I agree it won't affect the sole gill net fishery quite so much , but some times there are some bass, looking back through my records I often see up to 5 stone , now in the sceme of things this is not very much and only a small percent of the catch, but its a £150 worth I would have to throw a way, a French man won't,

And to talk of getting the MLS up to 55cm is just fantasy

 

QUOTE

As far as the benefits of larger fish falling to the French, our talks with CEFAS show that not to be true, very few of the larger inshore bass are now falling to the international fishery outside of 12 miles, and it shouldn't be forgotten that there were the same arguments used when it was proposed that we moved to 36cm.

 

The French can fish up to 6 miles from the coast, and I doubt the french skippers return the tags any way.

I can't remember there being much opposition when it was moved to 36 cm.

 

Quote

or use a different method altogether that allows for live release of the fish rather than dead discards. Maybe long lining.

It's very difficult to catch dover soles on long lines.

[wurzel]

QUOTE

I was under the impression that gill nets were selective in what they caught.Maybe not though.

 

The size is selective not so much the species.

QUOTE

If the commercial fishermen have to wait a year or so before they see the benefits thats just one of those things.

 

Thats just the sort of remark that gets them annoyed.

 

QUOTE

Lets face it they've had it all to themselves for so long its about time someone else got a look in.

 

So anglers have never caught any bass then.

 

QUOTE

Bass haven't been targetted commercially for very long and yet commercial fishermen did alright before they started gill netting for bass.

 

about 40 years not long then. what industry can step back 40 years ?

[Bob Jerunkel]

QUOTE

 

about 40 years not long then. what industry can step back 40 years ?

 

Coal mining and ship building are two that seem appropriate.

[Leon Roskilly]

QUOTE

I can't remember there being much opposition when it was moved to 36 cm.

 

 

 

Also, what happened when the current 36cm limit was introduced, were all the commercial guys up in arms then?

 

Somebody asked me that the other day, I can't remember, it's never been an issue for me.

 

 

 

A senior moment Wurzel?

 

 

 

 

QUOTEI doubt the french skippers return the tags any way.

 

Why?

 

 

TL - leon

Edited November 3, 2005 by Leon Roskilly

[JRT]

Wurzel, you seem more concerned about the French than increasing the size of Bass? The french doing what they want is a separate issue that goes way beyond the BMP and most here would agree with you.

 

As for the inshore fisherman. Virtually every business in every other sector has gone thru radical change in the last few years either thru market forces and/or legislation. They don't get tax breaks or tax payers money so why the hell should inshore fisherman? Do they serously expect handouts to stop decimating fish stocks?

JRT